It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 327
377
<< 324  325  326    328  329  330 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblackAre these stars?? Look like it..



Nope, those aren't stars. Those are corona calibration shots, taken pointing almost directly of the sun. The longest exposure was only 1/30th of a second, which isn't long enough to get stars. It's likely debris or window contamination that's being backlit by the sun.




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Thanks, I thought it odd seeing stars so close to a bright light source.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Do you know which magazines was ASA 6000 used? I cant seem to find them/it.

Magazine R on Apollo 15 was ASA 6000.


Are these stars?? Look like it..



Was wondering the same thing.
It looks more like debris though.
Seeing how some of the objects are out of focus.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Ah, great to see you back, ppk
... But you seem to be having a little difficulty keeping up...

I think i can help:


Originally posted by ppk55
I just can't understand why they would repeat this excruciating ordeal 6 times. Yes, 6 times.

Anyone else having a problem? Could it be that back in that era, there was much patriotism, and this was, after all, a signifcant gesture in regard to the USA proving its supposed superiority over the evil Russkies. I don't agree with that sentiment, but that's what it was like. And I also realise there are some odd young whippersnappers on this forum that are too young to understand.


If science was the priority, which it should have been on Apollo 12 - 17 then this ridiculous excercise of erecting a flag on each and every mission becomes even more absurd.

And yet elsewhere they are criticised for not doing more lameass experiments like the hammer and feather thing, to show the gravity and vacuum differences, yet these gave no real scientific information that wasn't already known. You can argue all day and night about how they could have spent their time better, and all you are achieving is distraction - oh wait, that's what you want...


Any scientist would agree with this.

Name them, and cite quotes, otherwise drop this ridiculous DRIVEL. Fact is, all the scientists I've known (and that's quite a lot as others can testify..) have senses of humour, and a sense of reality and the value of what may seem like like trivia. They also understand that motivations and 'traditions' change over time.


Pardon the pun, but this is the biggest flag that they were not genuine missions.

CLASSIC - so we now know that to ppk, the best evidence is that they erected a flag. BRAVO, ppk!!! You are finally onto the smoking gun.



Subtract the 50 minutes spent setting up flags from A12-A17 and instead, they could be taking just one picture of the stars. Where is that picture?

At last, we are back on topic.

Now, just above, you wanted everything to be properly considered science. YES or NO?

Then some questions need to be asked - the ones you are IGNORING and AVOIDING. Here they are again:

1. How exactly would these images, taken from the sunlit side of the Moon, be 'astounding'?

2. What sort of equipment would you suggest they use, and how?

3. Just how many f-stops advantage would there be? (Or if you prefer, what would be the limiting magnitude advantage?)

4. What effect would using a different speed film (from those available at the time) have on all this, or would you suggest an electronic sensor? How much dynamic range did the films/sensors of that era have, and why is that relevant?

5. How would these 'astounding pictures' compare to those from say the Palomar 48", or perhaps the Cerro Tololo or Kitt Peak 158" scopes?


Now we know you are going to avoid answering those questions like the plague, but may i briefly focus (heheh) on one in particular - Question 2 is VERY important. You've suggested they use the Hasselblads. (grin) More about that later, but first, tell us EXACTLY what they would have needed to do (and why) to get some decent results..

Take your time, but please answer comprehensively - try not to leave anything out. If you don't know or aren't too sure, it's ok to say so... (bigger grin)

May I please ask - those who know the very obvious (to an astrophotographer) answers to this, please let PPK post the answer/s by himself...


Good luck, ppk.

edit on 25-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: misuse of apostrophe's...




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Is NASA manipulating their video footage & photographs?






Question NASA Apollo 9 (AwE130 Film Archvives),
This is the second release from the AwE130 film archives. Also in this Apollo 9 film we will show you how NASA has altered their own video material. They have two different versions in circulation that we will show you. AwE130 shows NASA that their archives are incorrect. Tthat is the whisper NASA again you make it into murmur.


I do find the deformation of the Earth puzzling,
as well as the lack of clouds and in general atmosphere makes the Earth seem like a film prop.

Why would this be faked?
LEO was possible wasnt it?
Or was it the height in LEO that they were trying to fake?
This one is puzzling.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Dr Brian Cox on Faking the Moon Landings



The anger... the frustration, in his voice, makes me
wonder if Dr. Brian Cox is one of the debaters
here on this thread?



Seriously though, the best this scientists can come up with that the moonlanding happened
is because we have penicillin? Is that acceptable? Is this how the rest of the scientific
community argues in defense of Apollo,

"It happened because... because it just happened!"

Like some have pointed out, it seems like many people believe in Apollo religiously and not rationally.
They wont even dare to play "devils advocate" in fear that they might make sense, come up with good points?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Quoting FoosM
...come up with good points?


So, seriously, when will you be starting to do that?
edit on 25-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Quoting FoosM
...come up with good points?


So, seriously, when will you be starting to do that?
edit on 25-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)


Long before you will be able to prove that Apollo astronauts could survive the various radiation they would have encountered in cislunar space and on the moon.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


????


Long before you will be able to prove that Apollo astronauts could survive the various radiation they would have encountered in cislunar space and on the moon.


NO, not getting away with this sort of "drive-by" posting.

You (and "JW") have been throughly schooled on the "radiation" issue. NO futile attempts to just drop this mess, like a seagull at the beach and then fly away, is going to go unchallenged.

Every "post" by "FoosM" made has been shown to be full of "info" that is either misidentified, misapplied, or otherwise distorted....and EVERY "post" by "FoosM" has been completely and utterly demolished with proper citations, real facts and figures and the foolish assertions laid bare........



edit on 25 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Where are this guy's sources? He links to what he calls the second video, but gives no source for the one he labels "NASA Archive." Where'd he get it?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Was wondering the same thing.
It looks more like debris though.
Seeing how some of the objects are out of focus.

You still haven't explained how you think NASA modified the Hasselblad cameras to prevent taking pictures of stars.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Was wondering the same thing.
It looks more like debris though.
Seeing how some of the objects are out of focus.

You still haven't explained how you think NASA modified the Hasselblad cameras to prevent taking pictures of stars.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

I do find the deformation of the Earth puzzling,
as well as the lack of clouds and in general atmosphere makes the Earth seem like a film prop.



after reviewing the tape, I have
determined that the deformation of the earth
was due to a window pane being in the foreground.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I believe the last few pages have extensively covered the issues
conspiracy theorists have with the lack of stars in the photographic record
of Apollo, and the lack of discussion by the Astronauts regarding seeing any
stars.


In other words, you have been reveling in the poverty of your case,



And when I mean by the lack of discussion, I'm referring to the initial
reactions from the Astronauts, like in the Apollo 11 press conference, about
their experiences going to and landing on the moon.
Not their recollections of the adventure 10, 20 years later in books, conferences, etc.
But when we do compare, what we have regarding seeing stars, we get
conflicting testimony between astronauts and scientists.
This is a problem.


Yes, a major problem. For you.


Now we get to the cameras.
Through my research, I realized that the Hasselblad cameras
were modified to settings where they could not have taken photos of the stars.
The camera in a sense became a red-herring.
Over the past several years the debate has been whether or not Apollo photographs should have had stars in them.
Instead, the debate should have been, why did NASA modify the Hasselblads so they could NOT take photos of the stars?


Exactly. Where did you provide any evidence that that the cameras were "gimped?" You didn't. At this point, your "argument" is that NASA disabled the cameras so that they couldn't photograph stars. Okay, let's go with that... why would they disable the cameras if they were shooting on a sound stage? Doesn't make sense. It's like OJ's lawyers emphasizing that OJ bought a knife because he had been cast in a movie where he played a "Special Ops" guy. All people would remember is that the defense emphasized that he had a knife.


I have also revealed that even though the Hassies could not take photos of the stars with their constricted settings, the 35mm cameras could. And I provided photos of galaxies, etc from 35mm cameras taken aboard LEO missions.


No, you didn't. I provided photos that showed that the Apollo missions did do astrophotography, mostly in wavelengths that could not be done from Earth. And stop calling them "Hassies!" I don't call my Nikons "Nikies!"


We also have learned that there were pictures of the cosmos made in concert with lunar photography via the CM, but these photos must be ordered and are not readily available like their lunar topographic counterparts. And if persons have asked for these photos, why we seen so few of these pictures presented in books, magazines, online? Defenders would say, they were blurry, etc. But thats not possible if the pictures of the lunar surface is sharp, then by the sheer distance of the stars, they, the stars, would look even better!


Excellent. You have now set Jarrah his next bar. He can now provide absolute proof that the Apollo missions were faked by simply ordering the microfiches of the stellar photographs from Goddard (a dump, I've been there... nearly got Rocky Mountain fever in sick bay) calculate the exact stellar positions using a stellar atlas and the known movements of the stars to generate a CGI image of the stars on a given date, calculate the position of the SIM Bay lunar mapping camera for each photograph and compare the results. This should be child's play for a genius like Jarrah... and he would have a smoking gun that even I would be forced to accept. Easy as pie for a genius like Jarrah. Are we on?







edit on 25-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Hi Foosm
Lets see hammer and feather was to prove how gravity worked on objects.


That wasnt for science, that was for the public.
If it was for science the experiment would be more elaborate and measuring instruments would be used.

If they were actually on the moon, their movements would be enough proof of how gravity works.
And why wait till Apollo 15 to conduct the experiment?




SORRY Foosm but once again YOU show YOU dont have a clue its was to prove gravity acts the same
on any mass be it a feather or a hammer with no air resistance they fall at the same speed.

YOU are indeed are a really sad person only equipment needed is a movie camera and your eyes!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



SORRY Foosm but once again YOU show YOU dont have a clue its was to prove gravity acts the same
on any mass be it a feather or a hammer with no air resistance they fall at the same speed.

YOU are indeed are a really sad person only equipment needed is a movie camera and your eyes!!!


Even I knew Foosm meant it wasn't a serious science experiment..
I doubt the results will be peer reviewed and turn up on someones science paper..

It was done merely for the TV audience..So Foosm point was correct...

So maybe try again and think before you do...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Hi Foosm
Lets see hammer and feather was to prove how gravity worked on objects.


That wasnt for science, that was for the public.
If it was for science the experiment would be more elaborate and measuring instruments would be used.

If they were actually on the moon, their movements would be enough proof of how gravity works.
And why wait till Apollo 15 to conduct the experiment?




SORRY Foosm but once again YOU show YOU dont have a clue its was to prove gravity acts the same
on any mass be it a feather or a hammer with no air resistance they fall at the same speed.

YOU are indeed are a really sad person only equipment needed is a movie camera and your eyes!!!



Problem is you cant prove they actually used a real feather.
You cant prove they did that stunt on the moon vs a vacuum chamber.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I am curious:
How does this sit with the hoaxies?
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


Now we get to the cameras.
Through my research, I realized that the Hasselblad cameras
were modified to settings where they could not have taken photos of the stars.
The camera in a sense became a red-herring.
Over the past several years the debate has been whether or not Apollo photographs should have had stars in them.
Instead, the debate should have been, why did NASA modify the Hasselblads so they could NOT take photos of the stars?


Exactly. Where did you provide any evidence that that the cameras were "gimped?" You didn't. At this point, your "argument" is that NASA disabled the cameras so that they couldn't photograph stars. Okay, let's go with that... why would they disable the cameras if they were shooting on a sound stage? Doesn't make sense. It's like OJ's lawyers emphasizing that OJ bought a knife because he had been cast in a movie where he played a "Special Ops" guy. All people would remember is that the defense emphasized that he had a knife.


DJ, you had ample opportunity to go through my evidence when I brought this up a few pages ago.
I gave my reasonings why, and explained how I thought these cameras were modified. Best you go back and read so we can move this conversation along if you something new to add.

Nat has brought up some evidence that the cameras could take additional speeds than the 250 and 125 setting. But I have asked him to determine if the long exposures setting was still included.






I have also revealed that even though the Hassies could not take photos of the stars with their constricted settings, the 35mm cameras could. And I provided photos of galaxies, etc from 35mm cameras taken aboard LEO missions.


No, you didn't. I provided photos that showed that the Apollo missions did do astrophotography, mostly in wavelengths that could not be done from Earth. And stop calling them "Hassies!" I don't call my Nikons "Nikies!"


Hassy, or Hassie is an accepted way of referring to Hasselblads in the camera community.
It is not derogatory. Unlike possibly the lumping of Canon and Nikon users into "Cannikons"
I dont care if you have pet names for your camera or not.




Excellent. You have now set Jarrah his next bar. He can now provide absolute proof that the Apollo missions were faked by simply ordering the microfiches of the stellar photographs from Goddard (a dump, I've been there... nearly got Rocky Mountain fever in sick bay) calculate the exact stellar positions using a stellar atlas and the known movements of the stars to generate a CGI image of the stars on a given date, calculate the position of the SIM Bay lunar mapping camera for each photograph and compare the results. This should be child's play for a genius like Jarrah... and he would have a smoking gun that even I would be forced to accept. Easy as pie for a genius like Jarrah. Are we on?


And Im sure you wont have any problems funding this adventure for JW correct?
JW has a special account you can use to donate money to.








edit on 25-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


????


Long before you will be able to prove that Apollo astronauts could survive the various radiation they would have encountered in cislunar space and on the moon.


NO, not getting away with this sort of "drive-by" posting.

You (and "JW") have been throughly schooled on the "radiation" issue. NO futile attempts to just drop this mess, like a seagull at the beach and then fly away, is going to go unchallenged.

Every "post" by "FoosM" made has been shown to be full of "info" that is either misidentified, misapplied, or otherwise distorted....and EVERY "post" by "FoosM" has been completely and utterly demolished with proper citations, real facts and figures and the foolish assertions laid bare........


Thats not true.
There has been facts presented where I retracted a few allegations.
But on the whole, most pro-Apollo arguments have been a matter of opinion.
Just like followers of religion who make arguments from their particular books,
Apollo supporters only have NASA to draw their info from, and its NASA and Apollo that is being questioned.

It would require more than even an Apollo astronaut to make the statement the moon missions was faked for people to believe it. He would be painted a senile crackpot first. All of them would have to admit it was faked.
Or, an official statement by the POTUS.

But that wont happen, so all we can do is keep looking for inconsistencies, mistakes, contradictions in the Apollo record. And plenty has been found.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 324  325  326    328  329  330 >>

log in

join